Talk:Paul Keating/Archive 3

Removal of "true believers" from article
Per here, referring to the True Believers speech is being removed and IP editor is ignoring WP:BRD. Assistance would be appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have every right to ignore whatever essays I like. You, on the other hand, do not have the right to revert edits just because you don't like them.  Your edit summary of "disagree" when reverting was inadequate and unhelpful, and your comment here demonstrates only bad faith and a clear unwillingness to discuss or understand the issue.


 * For the benefit of those with a bit more politeness and sense: there were two major problems with the text that I removed, which was "an evening made even more memorable by his subsequent "true believers" victory speech"
 * made even more memorable is a subjective and unverifiable claim.
 * no explanation is given here or anywhere else in the article about what this speech contained. Most of the world doesn't know or care about Australian politics.  Without an explanation to readers of this article why this speech was significant (if, indeed, it was so), then the text is meaningless and the article is improved by its removal. 187.17.52.174 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The removal of content referring to one of Keating's most famous speeches does not improve the article. Timeshift (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The removal of context-free waffle of interest only to Australian politics nerds improves the article. I told you what is required here; see point number 2 above. 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to welcome a new editor to the gentle discussion club that is the Australian political area in Wikipedia. The way things work best here is if we follow policy. Editors are welcome to make bold edits, but if they are promptly reverted, it is wisest to discuss the change on the talk page before proceeding. This is known as Bold, Revert, Discuss. Which is where we are now. If there is general agreement for the changes, they will be made, despite the individual feelings of one or two editors.


 * At the moment, I'm inclined to side with Timeshift, who is following policy. I find that when material remains unchallenged in an article for some time, it is because it belongs there. --Pete (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As you entirely ignored what I said above, then presumably you're just typing stuff because you like how your words look on the screen. 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * To be fair, there are only a couple of primary links to transcript and audio of the speech. We need a secondary source stating its importance. Preferably not Philip Adams. --Pete (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

IP EDITOR STOP NOW. You removed my comment here saying you broke WP:3RR and you also removed another editors comment. You will have disciplinary action taken against you with actions like that. Timeshift (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

IP editor has now performed 5 reverts. Timeshift (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The IP editor is just trolling at this point: his proposal makes no sense, he's posting trolling comments on talk page and deleting other users' replies. One to be banned sooner rather than later. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You must be immensely retarded if you think my "proposal makes no sense". Try reading it, get an adult to help you perhaps, and respond to it, instead of just attacking me.  187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Who wants to report him for 3RR? I warned him with the 3RR template but got reverted with the edit summary "kindly fuck off, you're not interested in anything except being a dick". Timeshift (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Who wants to stop being ridiculous and respond to my comments above? Anyone have the intelligence to do that? No? 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With 9 reverts of yours in the space of an hour, who is being recalcitrant? Timeshift (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You demanded a discussion. I predicted that you wouldn't be any use .  Indeed, you appear to be completely incapable of even grasping my simple points, let alone responding to them. 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop this behavior please! Whether you think you are in the right or not, you need to abide by WP:CIV and WP:3RR. I have struck out your comments above that were uncivil and must ask that you stop this incivility. It is not helping your argument at all, but rather is making us more inclined to block you. Johnny338 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a single person assumed good faith, not a single person bothered to give a coherent reason for their reverts (examples: "disagree", "Yeah, I'm a huuuge fan of Keating. Talk it easy, mate"), not a single person has apparently even understood, let alone been able to muster up the intellectual firepower to respond to my comments above. And you dare to call me uncivil?  If you throw rocks at someone, don't be surprised if they become angry at you.  187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how you feel, calling someone retarded is never the right thing to do. It is inexcusable. You are violating Wikipedia's policies, and have made no attempt to address any of the concerns that other editors have addressed. I think it's about time that an administrator is brought in here. Johnny338 (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a common sense edit. I left a clear edit summary.  I further justified the edit on the talk page when requested, even though the person requesting it clearly had no actual interest in discussion.  Not one person has bothered to respond sensibly.  They have behaved, instead, like retards.  Attack me for no reason and expect only kind words in return?  Bit naive, I think.  187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What common sense? Stop removing other users comments. Especially ones that advise you've been reported to 3RR. Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not an excuse. You've been reported here. Johnny338 (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope that gives you immense satisfaction. I liked the dishonest claim in the report.  187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked, can someone revert to the previous edit? Timeshift (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted to the last revision before the IP user began his one-man edit war. If there is a dispute in content, I'd be happy to do what I can to help resolve it :-) ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Emotional outbursts and personal attacks aside, I agree with the IP in as much as the language in WP should be formal and not subjective. References to "an even more memorable evening" are certainly subjective and I believe the IP was right in addressing that. However, it was not necessary to remove the entire reference to the speech. The later corrections and reference to the speech are presented in a neutral tone, (although it is perhaps a bit awkward to sequence the events from campaign to victory to speech in a single sentence!) Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One single substantive response to one of my points. Good to see that someone finally decided it was better to respond to me than to engage in a coordinated attack.  But there's still no response to my second point, and the sentence in the article right now is so poorly written as to make little sense.  If being immature, attacking IP editors, lying and being disruptive is more important to you all than remedying basic errors in important articles, then I'll leave you to it for now.  I'll be back in a while to see if anyone less stupid is squatting on the article.  187.17.52.174 (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Point 2 remains unaddressed. 187.17.52.174 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the IP claims they don't know what the speech is about. Try looking at the two refs. Perhaps use them to expand it. Just sayin :) Timeshift (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, try doing that. But apparently you think everyone in the world knows enough about this obscure speech that that's unnecessary.  And quit with the infantile tone if you want to have a serious discussion.  "Just sayin"?  Grow up.  187.17.52.174 (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently you think the speech is so unknown that it's not worth mentioning. As for the rest of your comment, glass houses, pots and kettles etc. Timeshift (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article in its current state gives no information about the speech at all, other than assigning it a name that is unrecognisable to anyone who's not deeply in love with Australian politics of the early 1990s. You have refused to add any information.  Why?  187.17.52.174 (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And why did User:Skyring revert this change? 187.17.52.174 (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

1) Everyone, calm down. 2) My opinion - IP is right that in it's current state, it looks like a piece of trivia. If it's trivia then it's not encyclopedic (politicians make speeches all the time, Wikipedia articles are not going to become a list of speeches - WP:NOT, specifically WP:RAWDATA) and should be removed. If it's not trivia, then it needs to be explained. If it's important enough to have it's own Wikipedia article (some examples Category:Speeches), then a wikilink to that article is sufficient. If it's not, than the speech should be explained in this article. The best person to make these additions is someone who's informed on the subject - not someone who is unfamiliar with the speech or thinks it's trivia. Kirin13 (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have also refused to add any information and further you have categorically indicated it is not noteworthy and should be removed, despite the admission you know nothing about it. I'm certainly not going to add further information just because of your bullying behaviour. Timeshift (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you won't explain the importance or relevance of the speech, then we can see that it is unimportant and irrelevant. If no-one has bothered to do anything about this serious failing in the article in three days, I'll remove the mention of it again.  187.17.52.174 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh, de ja vu :) Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since discussion has yet to provide a reason - I support removal. If you don't believe it's trivia, then provide clear reasoning. While IP's language leaves something to be desired (to put it mildly), s/he has made a valid point that has not been addressed. If you refuse to address her/him - then address me. Wikipedia is not about the editors, it's about the content. Even if you don't like the editor that presented a change, you should consider the revision. Kirin13 (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one of the most famous speeches of a PM with more notable speeches than most; calling it "trivia" takes a pretty hardcore ignorance of Australian politics. The wording absolutely could do with improving, but that's something that might be better received without trying to challenge the inclusion of the thing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Timeshift (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

At current state, nothing in article indicates it's particularly notable. I've seen claims of importance above, but no reasoning. If you've bothered to read my comments, then you would know that I made no claim that it is trivial. The challenge was laid by the IP in his initial – btw: making a WP:BOLD edit is perfectly acceptable. Your current argument for inclusion is that bold edits are not allowed? Sorry, but that's not a valid reason. Kirin13 (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Making a WP:BOLD edit is perfectly acceptable. Reverting a WP:BOLD edit is also acceptable, and the fact that the IP was reverted by pretty much the entire political cross-section of editors in this area might hint that his edits shouldn't stand. Here's the thing: I think most people here would be happy to discuss how one might improve the mentioning of this important speech in the article, but the fact that you're making staunch arguments about what should go in this article, despite making clear that you're totally ignorant of the entire subject area beyond the current state of this article does make one less inclined to give weight to your arguments. You're making arguments about famous historical events that you admit to being totally ignorant about and then you wonder why a broad cross-section of editors look at your contributions dubiously to say the least. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * IP was was blocked for edit warring, but the who blocking him  "seems to be successful tag-team reverting by registered accounts, none of whom gave even a remotely explanatory edit summary". That tells me that it's time for this tag-team to actually talk instead of saying 'we know better than you'. The fact that you're attacking me - well, that lowers my opinion of your arguments. Kirin13 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you arguing with a large group of editors - normally wildly in disagreement - about the inclusion of something you know absolutely nothing about? The significance of this would be readily apparent if you did a Google search or picked up a book on the subject (or, hell, were alive in Australia and watched the news in that time period), and you're clearly not interested in it enough to actually even do a Google search. So I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. If you're challenging the wording, which everyone agrees could be improved, how about you stop arguing about the event's significance? Or are you just trying to annoy Australian editors for the lulz? What is the purpose of editing topics on an encyclopedia on topics that you know nothing about - and crucially aren't interested enough in to learn anything about? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If by "large group of editors" you mean two people (because that's all the people I've seen arguing with me - and one was just nodding you along), then sure. You know how easy it is for you to shut me up? Yet you're unwilling to do that. You'd rather insult me and leave problems with the article. Kirin13 (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to discuss the wording of the article, as is everyone else I've seen who's previously reverted the IP. What I'm not happy to do is justify the inclusion of a major historical speech to someone who knows nothing about the subject and doesn't want to learn. Which do you want to do? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If claim you're willing to discuss, actually discuss instead of insulting me. Kirin13 (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you make a proposal that doesn't involve removing mention of a key event? I and I assume most others here would be more than willing to listen. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you. I have given clear reason why the current wording is insufficient. You have made it clear that I am "ignorant", that you are not inclined to give weight to my arguments, and that my contributions are dubious. That tells me that you don't want hear me and it's not worth me proposing anything to you. I'm willing to listen to your 'very informed' proposal, yet the only proposal you give is to leave article in current state when you admit that wording is less than desirable. Kirin13 (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We give the speech two primary sources. I'm not finding a lot on its importance beyond inclusion in a collection of "Great Labor Speeches". Perhaps a true believer can find some more pertinent reference? --Pete (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur – secondary sources are necessary. It would also be good to have a sentence (or more – if it's that important, some speeches are important enough to have entire articles) summarizing the speech. Kirin13 (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this sounds like an excellent idea! The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC


 * "one of Keating's most famous speeches"
 * "one of the most famous speeches of a PM with more notable speeches than most"
 * "famous historical events"
 * "this important speech"
 * "a major historical speech"
 * I must say it's kind of hilarious to watch the bizarre behaviour being exhibited by the Australians here. Looks like you're all men of a certain age, and you can't quite comprehend that people not from your demographic might read the article.  Apparently you are of the opinion that readers already know everything there is to know about this speech from 21 years ago and so actually explaining anything about it in the text is unnecessary.  Stop blathering on about its importance on the talk page, and start writing neutrally about its importance in the article.  Your persistent refusal to do so shows that whatever you're trying to do, you're certainly not trying to improve the encyclopaedia. 200.223.17.74 (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm a woman in my 20s, and Keating made this speech when I was in early primary school. I don't think readers already know everything there is to know about the subject; I do think editors should have a vague understanding of the subject before they start arguing what is significant enough to go in - and out. Any book on Keating (and there are enough) talks about the importance of the True Believers speech, and I'm of the firm belief that those who raise an issue in this way are volunteering themselves to go read a book and do the research to improve the article. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One more talk page assertion of its importance for the pile. Still no evidence of any good faith attempts to actually improve the article. 200.223.17.74 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. The library awaits you. And, to re-add a comment of mine which you deleted, the perfect place for you to start is the major biography of Keating whose title pays homage to this speech. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a copy of said biography, perhaps you could do the sofixiting? I have just clicked on both supposed sources; they are both dead. They are only primary sources, in any case. All material in a BLP must be sourced, and I propose to delete this material, unless it is fixed very soon. --Pete (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a copy, and I take very badly to "research this thing that I want you to right now or I'll pee on the carpet" tactics (the IP, not you). Searching for Keating and this speech turns up twenty bazillion hits; I'm sure one of you can turn up something very quickly. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. Because if something doesn't turn up pretty smartly, I'm going to get rid of it until we get a good source. There have been some valid points made above amongst all the tears and self-manipulation, and it comes down to basic WP:RS and WP:BLP policy. --Pete (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Which will be reverted and then we wind up right back here. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that no one is willing to provide a source for this claim. Thus it is unsourced & has been contested. By policy, it is to be removed. If you revert the edit, you will be going against against policy. WP:BRD is a wonderful essay, but policy supersedes it. Unless someone has something useful to contribute to this discussion (and not threats of holding this article hostage using an essay), consensus on this topic has been reached. Kirin13 (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I could be a pointy dick and remove it, being within my rights under BLP to remove unsourced information, but I'd like to see someone who knows the subject fix it up so it complies with policy. BLP is policy, just in case anyone is wondering. Any true believers left, or did they go down in the Rudd sinking? --Pete (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added a source, but you should all be ashamed of yourselves. If you spent remotely as much time working on the encyclopedia as you do enthusiastically demanding other people (who actually do work) waste theirs, we might have a much better product to show for it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * An interesting source. Couldn't find any reference, but it was like trying to listen to AC/DC scrape their fingernails down a blackboard. Did you ever find out how to do a proper cite with page numbers and stuff? --Pete (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DW. The cite is found on p262 of a thesis:"In his “True Believers” speech on election night, Keating thanked “the women of Australia, who voted for [Labor] believing in the policies of this government” (Gordon, 1993: 257)."Not sure that quite sums the thing up. --Pete (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to sum the thing up - the only reference to the speech in this article says that it happened and what it was called, which that reference covers in its entirety. Look, this is getting really silly. If you're that hellbent on removing any mention of a famous speech for god knows what reason, I'm not going to stop you. You can go home and feel so proud that you got one over on that grumpy cow, meanwhile this article now no longer mentions something it should. Well done. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC) DW: Out of the "twenty bazillion" hits, you pick one that barely mentions the speech and doesn't in any way explain it's significance. If anything, this says it's unimportant. Btw: With all your uncivil comments, you're not helping Wikipedia. Requiring that claims be sourced is helping Wikipedia. If you're arguing for inclusion, it's your responsibility to get a source. Kirin13 (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I provided a source that backed up the tiny bit we have in the article about it. The claim *is* sourced in its entirety. This is a point that should be completely uncontroversial: that someone would argue with the inclusion of this speech is something that could only happen on Wikipedia, and only by someone who'd never heard of Keating before stumbling across this article and deciding to wade into this talk page. And look, as I said, you can go home feeling very happy with yourself because you showed that bitch, but I'm not going to take a trip to the library on a really bad back because some dude online is going out of his way to be a pain. If you really relish making articles worse than when you found them because you like to get one up on people you think are mean, I'm not going to stop you. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you're in pain. Might be time for a couple of tablets and/or a glass of a nice red. I'm not about to remove it, and certainly not to make you, or anyone feel unhappy. But if it's such a notable speech, why is it proving so difficult finding a reasonable reference? Timeshift, you must have awesome reserves of ALP feelgood, you got something for this? --Pete (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Importance of speech still not addressed. seems to still be justified since no one's cares to actually provide information to contradict. More insults again. Kirin13 (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Christ almighty. If you spent five minutes googling ""true believers" "paul keating", you would find a host of sources indicating its importance. This feature from the Conversation quotes the speech both in its title and its final paragraph, showing that it is still strongly associated with Keating. Also in a title from the Australian, again from almost twenty years later. This book, about cricket of all things, even quotes it (note the "said famously"). It's even the title of a collection of great Labor speeches. And all that is just from the first two pages of Google search results. Next time you see something like this, try doing that yourself rather than demanding people prove how relevant something is when you know nothing about the topic. By all means improve the way it is currently described, which is pretty perfunctory and context-free, but let's have no more rubbish about whether it's significant or not. (And for the record, I wasn't even in preschool when this speech was made, yet I am somehow aware of its importance. Astounding!) Frickeg (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet more talk page assertions of how freaking obvious it is that this speech is vitally important, and yet still no-one is able or willing to explain why in the article. People who say that they know all the facts and that everyone else is just ignorant, and yet refuse to add said facts and demand instead that the ignorant people add them, cannot be acting in good faith.
 * Also confusing is User:Skyring's flailing attitude. One minute it's "I find that when material remains unchallenged in an article for some time, it is because it belongs there" and all the fun he had attacking me, the next it's "if something doesn't turn up pretty smartly, I'm going to get rid of it until we get a good source", and then it's "I'm not about to remove it".  Perhaps he might have also changed his mind about reverting this edit and restore it, or at least explain what his problem was with it.  190.44.133.67 (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So the exact reason you disagree with the material is?Alans1977 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See edit summary of and read the above discussion, including:
 * "no explanation is given here or anywhere else in the article about what this speech contained. Most of the world doesn't know or care about Australian politics. Without an explanation to readers of this article why this speech was significant (if, indeed, it was so), then the text is meaningless"
 * "in it's current state, it looks like a piece of trivia. If it's trivia then it's not encyclopedic (politicians make speeches all the time, Wikipedia articles are not going to become a list of speeches - WP:NOT, specifically WP:RAWDATA) and should be removed. If it's not trivia, then it needs to be explained. If it's important enough to have it's own Wikipedia article (some examples Category:Speeches), then a wikilink to that article is sufficient. If it's not, than the speech should be explained in this article."
 * "more talk page assertions of how freaking obvious it is that this speech is vitally important, and yet still no-one is able or willing to explain why in the article. People who say that they know all the facts and that everyone else is just ignorant, and yet refuse to add said facts"
 * Kirin13 (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just reviewed and can't understand the fuss over half a sentence.Alans1977 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's inclusion was challenged and no one has provided reasoning for inclusion (besides their personal opinion of how important it is). Instead it was clearly told how "ignorant" anyone challenging it is, that it is the responsibility of the ignorant to find proof of importance & add it to article, but any contribution they make should be treated as "dubious". If you care to end the fuss, please add appropriate info to article. Kirin13 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So the material which had been there for some time was challenged and the challenger insisted that rather than him making a good argument for the removal of the material that every one else argue why it shouldn't be removed. Does that sum it up? Alans1977 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The material is now sourced, and Frickeg, god bless him, has now provided another four sources for the speech's notability. We get it: you've decided you want the article's content about the speech expanded beyond what it is, and you're trying to strongarm editors into doing that work for you by persisting with a notability argument that doesn't stand up for five seconds. If you want to expand it, everyone here will be thrilled, but it's not our job to expand referenced bits of articles upon somebody's whim - Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. I'm now off until this little tantrum is over. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Drover&#39;s Wife: Your tantrums and insults will not be missed.
 * @Alans: An argument was made for removal - the way it was presented it was trivia & and trivia doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Further it was only cited by dead links to the speech itself and with no actual reliable or secondary sources. It took over 50 hours and over 50 talk page comments before any one actually decided to provide any source - all the while arguing that since it's their personal opinion that this is important then they don't need to provide any source. That's a more accurate sum. Kirin13 (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the provided sources are about the speech or even make more than a single line mention of it. So as far as I can tell, from these sources, the speech itself wasn't important. The only notable detail (which I synthesized) was that for Australians, "true believers" became associated Keating and his backers. Kirin13 (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Even by your "synthesis", that happened because of this speech, which is more than enough to reference the thing in this article. If you want more detail or analysis, the library is that way. One of the ironies of this is that we're a pretty accommodating bunch, and if you were actually curious, had asked nicely and actually shown an inclination to listen to anything said, I'm sure myself or someone else would have gone and done that research for you. But this is more than enough for what is currently in the article, so we're done here. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why the thing is effectively unsourced after all this fuss. The best I could come up with was inclusion in a book of notable ALP speeches. I don't have the book on hand, so realistically I can't cite it, unless I refer to the publisher's blurb. I assumed that someone who knew the subject well could come up with a mainstream source in a moment. After all, if it is an important speech, then there's going to be more than tangential coverage. A mention in a PhD thesis is a published source, but I'm hoping we can come up with something more visible and relevant. --Pete (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What's there is sourced, and Frickeg's references demonstrate notability beyond doubt sufficient to mention the thing in this article. Now, there probably is enough out there to write an article on it - but it's also not what we're doing here. We don't need analysis of the speech to mention it in this article. Now, what I suspect is that - because that speech, famous as it is, was effectively an eloquent gloat, while it's referenced all over the place, there's not as much analysis of it (especially online) as there is of more socially significant (but probably less famous) Keating speeches like Redfern Park. Keating's so widely written about that given a day in the state library I could still write a well-referenced article on it in my sleep, but I'm not going to do so in this case. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A well-deserved gloat. Few expected Keating to win. I think that Hewson's decision to fight the election on a 15% GST had more to do with it than any other factor, but Keating's team put out some brilliant ads which capitalised on the issue. Whatever one feels about the leaders and the politics, elections have a historic effect on the political landscape, and what is said on those nights sometimes has more honesty and insight than what usually emerges from the mouths of politicians. Within myself, I know that the speech is worth a mention, but turning from political policy to wikipolicy, it still needs to be sourced properly. --Pete (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It still is reliably sourced, though (now with even more). The two editors trying to lift the referencing bar for mentioning the speech in an article to the level required to demonstrate notability for an entire article on the speech is them playing silly buggers. WP:RS doesn't work that way. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added an additional source published by the ABC and written by Bob Ellis. Do people feel it's now justified to remove the 'better sources needed' templates?Alans1977 (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also quite a bit of reference made in 'John Winston Howard: The Definitive Biography' on pages 193-194 if anyone has a copy. I can only see it through Google Books.Alans1977 (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur with removal of 'better sources needed' template, but not importance template. Kirin13 (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been reading and laughing at this excuse of a discussion whilst refraining from entering the troll's delight of blackmail for a while now. What a farce. And Skyring - like your dear leader, you are a weathervane. :) Timeshift (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are more and better things in life than politics, TS. Socrates demonstrated this. As for "dear leader", I didn't think you knew GG or HH. I must say that I like the idea of Ellis and Howard being jointly listed as sources. --Pete (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Snerk. I had a giggle at that one. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Link added to youtube clip of the speech itself.Alans1977 (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary source, Al. Not quite the thing. --Pete (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For half a sentence which is backed up by two secondary sources?Alans1977 (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read our sourcing policy. I'm not sure you've quite grasped it. One good source is far better than a dozen not so good ones. --Pete (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the YouTube video, repeating edit summary: "youtube videos generally not allowed (see WP:VIDEOREF) unless the video poster owns the copyright (image & recording) or both image & recording are public domain (most speeches & photos aren't [public domain])". Kirin13 (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You know what? Fine. I give in; you win. I realise one shouldn't surrender to petty blackmail like this, but this has become ridiculous. I have added an extra sentence about the speech, with extra citations. It took me about ten minutes total. This kind of thing represents the worst of Wikipedia: someone strolls along, decides they don't like something, and imperiously demands that other editors fix it or they'll torch the whole thing. Naturally enough, other people react poorly to having a gun held to their head. This required no special knowledge of the subject, just a familiarity with Google Scholar; and the worst of it all is, as TDW says above, if someone had just asked nicely about it - "wondering if anyone could help sourcing the "true believers" statement", for instance - neither I, nor anyone else, would have minded doing it. I hope what I've done satisfies, and if it doesn't then, quite frankly, fix it your goddamn self. Frickeg (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * HEAR HEAR! Timeshift (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it... is it over? Timeshift (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that what your girlfriend used to say? --Pete (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never had nor wanted a girlfriend. Men all the way :) Timeshift (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What a farce. The article is still in a deficient state and apparently none of you really even bothered to understand what the problem was, preferring instead to huffily and self-righteously fix some other issue and feel all morally superior about doing so.  Let's look at what you did.
 * Before: "...an evening made even more memorable by his subsequent "true believers" victory speech"
 * No explanation is given here or anywhere else in the article about what this speech contained. Most of the world doesn't know or care about Australian politics. Without an explanation to readers of this article why this speech was significant (if, indeed, it was so), then the text is meaningless and the article is improved by its removal
 * After: "At the party celebration Keating delivered the famous "true believers" speech, which is remembered as one of the great Labor speeches."
 * No explanation is given here or anywhere else in the article about what this speech contained. Most of the world doesn't know or care about Australian politics. Without an explanation to readers of this article why this speech was significant (if, indeed, it was so), then the text is meaningless and the article is improved by its removal.
 * So I've removed it again. Apparently all you parochial Australians know full well why this speech was important, you just don't think it's worth actually sharing that knowledge with people from beyond your shores.  Peacock words don't suffice.  You may prefer unprovable proclamations to facts, but policy demands that they be removed.  190.44.133.67 (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is over. Consensus has spoken. Timeshift (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The content is beyond abundantly referenced at this point. If you want it expanded, you do it. Alternatively, if you were merely curious about the content, you could go back in time a month, use some manners, and politely ask (not demand!) someone do that research for you. That's how Wikipedia works. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you having trouble reading? Referencing is not the issue.  The issue is that a context-free line about the "famous True Believers speech" is not of encyclopaedic value.  You and several others have claimed that it's completely obvious why this speech is important but you are refusing to explain why in the article.  I'm not demanding anything of anyone, I'm simply removing material that is detrimental to the quality of the article.  If you know what it needs to make it of value but you won't add it, then that's a pity but of no relevance at all to the discussion.  190.44.133.67 (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an abundant amount of references for what is currently contained in the article, which verify both the notability and accuracy of that content. "There should be more about thing in this article" is not and has never been a valid reason for removing information from articles and will wind up with your removals being very promptly reversed. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is truly bizarre. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One more revert on Keating and you'll get blocked, and for a much longer period. Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said on the 19th of June: "If you won't explain the importance or relevance of the speech, then we can see that it is unimportant and irrelevant. If no-one has bothered to do anything about this serious failing in the article in three days, I'll remove the mention of it again".  Other people agreed with this position.  So what made you imagine that consensus supported you in this?  Did you really believe it, were you being deliberately dishonest, or do you not know what the word means? 190.44.133.67 (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who else still agrees with your position? Please indicate who and where. Timeshift (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can read, you know who and where. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're the only one still saying it shouldn't be there. Everyone else agrees it should be there with the newer references provided. Timeshift (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are living in a dream world. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Insulting other editors on this talk page or trying to get your way through edit warring doesn't change the fact that there are a total of zero people continuing to support your position after the most recent changes. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No matter how much you might wish that were true, it isn't. Seriously, what is your mental deficiency that you think the phrase "true believers speech" doesn't need any explanation in the article?  190.44.133.67 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Image
Do we have a better photo? This one looks to be post PM and fairly casual. Just taking a few questions down the RSL, was he? --Pete (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

National Broadband Network (NBN)
Keating was the first person to advocate a National Broadband Network based on fibre optic cables and to ask for its construction to commence through Telstra. This was largely the outcome of early submissions by Michael Hatton.

The IT expert who drafted the social ideology for Hatton also worked on the NineMSN project for Kerry Packer / Brian Powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.74.193 (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"True believers"
The "true believers speech" is unknown to most people outside of nerdy Australians. Therefore, you can't just drop it into the article without explaining what it is and why it is important. You've had plenty of time to add some context and you haven't just not bothered, you've explicitly refused. Such bizarre and absurd behaviour is obviously not intended to be productive. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, if you had the sentence somewhere in the article that "Paul Keating made a speech", without any indication of what it was or why it was important, you could see that would be ridiculous, couldn't you? Please, someone, confirm that you can understand that.  190.44.133.67 (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's try to explain it so that even a backward child could understand it.
 * Paul Keating made a speech: doesn't contain any information, useless
 * Paul Keating made the famous "true believers speech": Still doesn't contain any information, still useless, and worse yet, uses peacock words instead of objective facts
 * Paul Keating's victory speech, in which he said XXX and YYY, was widely reported on and has been described as one of the greatest speeches in Australian politics.: this would actually be useful. And apparently you all know what XXX and YYY are, you just aren't going to add them to the article.  This is staggeringly stupid and leaves us with a line as pointless as #1, which has absolutely no place in the article.  190.44.133.67 (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Due to the continued refusal of anyone to add the necessary context, I've removed the mention of this speech again. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement "which is remembered as one of the great Labor speeches" seems to indicate its importance - it is mentioned in an account of Keating's biography because it is regarded as one of the most important Labor speeches. That seems sufficient justification for a single reference. - Bilby (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it regarded as such? What does it contain?  These are not hard questions.  If its inclusion cannot be justified, it must be removed.  See the three points above to understand what is required here. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel an article about the speech would be appropriate, that might be a good idea. But the reason for including a reference to it in this biography seems inherent in the wording - we mention it because this speech, given by Keating, is regarded as one of the great Labor speeches. We might also want to expand on why, perhaps, but that doesn't deny the value in mentioning that he gave the speech. - Bilby (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it regarded as such? We do not need to "expand on why", we need to actually state why.  I cannot begin to imagine why people are refusing to do so.  If no detail is going to be provided, there's no point mentioning the speech at all.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to for this edit. I had looked at the sources trying to find out about the speech and why it is important; that edit tells me. However, the IP's point that we are giving no information about the speech still has some of its validity. That last source added quotes the opening line. Could we do so, to provide fuller context for non-Australian readers (and for all I know, for younger Australians too?) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a tiny bit better but the reason for it being described as the "true believers" speech is not even given yet, let alone any indication of its content. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added that quotation in this edit. How does that look to those of you who know the topic? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't feed the troll, Yngvadottir. This editor was banned for a good long time due to his antics last time around, and he's never shown one iota of interest in contributing productively. Thank you for trying, but know that you're dealing with someone who's trying to get a rise out of you and others rather than actually get a grievance dealt with. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't lie, and don't make personal attacks. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the quote for the moment - my hassle is that it didn't open with the true believers reference, but with a line about being the sweetest victory, and thus is also sometimes referred to as the "Sweetest victory" speech. Equally, although the "true believers" reference was how the speech was later used against Keating, I'm not sure that it is connected to why the speech was so successful with the party faithful. Speaking generally, I think we're a bit too focused on this one speech - it was a significant speech, and certainly warrants a mention, but if we write too much on it we'll hit weight issues. - Bilby (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

5000 google results for "Paul Keating" and "True Believers". When will we decide to include it and move on to more productive things? Timeshift (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I live in hope that one day you'll actually read the discussion and understand the points being made.200.83.101.225 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't assume bad faith: the IP is trying to improve the article. Take a look at it from the point of view of an outsider to Australian politics. it hasn't been removed; two of us have added more information about it. Have a look. Does it look ok? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What an embarrassment this is. The spectacle of editors determined to prevent something as simple, obvious and essential as the relevance of a speech being sensibly explained is bizarre and ridiculous. Those editors should be ashamed of themselves, and the community should be ashamed of them.
 * 1) At the party celebration Keating delivered the "true believers" speech - this assumes prior knowledge of the speech which almost all readers do not have.
 * 2) today remembered - weasel words, unattributed, subjective, not true.
 * 3) as one of the great Labor speeches. - unattributed.

The brief mention of a phrase from the speech went some way to explaining why the speech was even being mentioned, but it's been removed. The determination of editors to keep the article in a deficient state is disgraceful. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Can I make a suggestion, IP? How about you spend five, ten minutes - maybe half an hour - doing a little bit of research, and then you write a version of this you would be happy with. Various people have attempted it, but none have reached your exacting standards. Rather than finding fault, how about being constructive? Frickeg (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My standards are not particularly exacting, unless you find the general encyclopaedic standards as outlined in the core policies and style manuals to be "exacting". People, including me, who have already attempted to explain the relevance of the speech have been reverted by the cabal of editors who are inexplicably determined to make the mention of it as baffling as possible to those with no intimate knowledge of early 1990s left wing Australian politics.  You appear to be one of those editors, having previously claimed that it is obvious to you why the speech was important or relevant but having refused to add any such information to the article.  Also see the third item in my list at the beginning of this section which explains very clearly and concisely what is required and why.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So. Fix. It. Frickeg (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So we're back to that, are we? I'm not an Australian politics nerd.  I do not know why this speech is so important, and I've been pointing out for months that its inclusion needs justifying.  You and others claim to know exactly why it's important, but you refuse to add anything of relevance to the article.  You want me to waste my time looking something up that you know anyway, just because you're too childish to put it in the article?  This is as bizarre and stupid a situation as I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and that really is saying something.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ. You do not need to be an "Australian politics nerd" (gee thanks) to be able to do this. All you need to be able to do is use Google. Various people (including me, for the record; not, at any stage in the whole process, including you) have tried to fix this. Maybe it's not FA-standard, but, well, we've all got other things to do. If you want it perfect, YOU DO IT. We are not your dancing bears. As for bizarre and stupid, well, I've got a mirror for you. I will not be responding to this trolling any longer. Frickeg (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't try to fix it. You've consistently refused to fix it.  You and others have claimed repeatedly to know why the speech must be mentioned but you have repeatedly refused to explain why in the article.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I was surprised to find the quote of the opening line had been removed as misleading. I have reverted that removal. How is it misleading to explain the name being given to the speech and the context of the divergent associations that we now explain it to have by quoting the opening - which I took from the reference that explains those divergent memories? I'm not sure I see the IP's point in wanting to add "so-called", but I do believe we need to explain why it's called that. Since the IP has challenged it, it would also be nice to have an explicit reference here for the "one of the great Labor speeches". I didn't see it in the sources I was able to check - I've been assuming good faith that I missed it or that it's in one of the offline sources, but after all this reverting I request a quotation, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was bemused but not particularly surprised. It seems typical of the group of editors who want to make this particular part of the article as opaque as possible.  Quote a line from the speech to explain why it is being referred to in the way that it is?  Why, that might make it almost comprehensible!  I put in "so-called" because to refer to it simply as "the true believers speech" presumes that the reader already knows all about it, which is clearly ridiculous.  I am not concerned about the particular wording but I am very concerned about broadening the audience beyond 1990s Australian politics enthusiasts. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I explained the removal above, but I had two concerns. The line:
 * "Opening with 'This is a victory for the true believers', the speech has been described as providing a source of inspiration for the party faithful ..."
 * First, the speech didn't open with "this is a victory for the true believers". It opened with a statement about this being the sweetest victory, and accordingly it is also referred to as the "sweetest victory" speech. Second, the current wording seems to suggest that the "true believers" reference is connected with why the speech was a source of inspiration, when that is not necessarily the case. - Bilby (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha, I was going by the source you added. This is the first I've heard of the alternate name. Please, could you amplify in the article? I do think we need to quote the "true believers" bit, both to explain the name and to explain why some have come to see it as exclusionary. Also, can you please find us something to explain the claim that it's "one of the greatest"? As I say, I may well have missed that in the sources I could see, but what I could see was speaking more in terms of its being remembered. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added two more sources to support the position of the speech, and removed two that I didn't feel were sufficiently reliable, or which didn't make the claim clearly in the text. "For The True Believers: Great Labor Speeches that Shaped History" should cover the "greatest speeches" claim. Otherwise, I'm concerned that if we keep adding more information about the speech we'll hit problems of weight. The speech was important, but explaining the details of the speech seems like something better left for an article about the speech or the election, rather than an article about Keating. - Bilby (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I've never heard of it referred to as the "sweetest victory" speech either. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me - I'm not hung up on the "so-called" and I do appreciate the weight issue - I think that's part of the IP's concern, that if we bother to mention that it was a great speech we need to document that, and that we need context to establish why it mattered/is remembered. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a one-line reference to a particularly famous speech by a Prime Minister which merely ensures that it at least gets mentioned in the article. Editors have provided sources out the ear for its notability. This is not an article on the speech: it is completely unnecessary for the article to go into great detail about its significance to mention that it happened and that it was significant. This is not a discussion that we would be having at all, ever, if it hadn't been the latest target of this anon and his (admirably brilliant) trolling efforts. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As has been brought to my attention privately, this user has a long history of similar antics dating back several years and a block log as long as my arm, with this being chronicled at Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Please stop indulging him: this is a querulous argument and you're ensuring it plays out exactly as he wants. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also,, as you're the admin who undid his last ban after an undertaking that he has subsequently repeatedly breached on this article alone, I would like an explanation. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss the issue, not me. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The ping didn't work, sorry about tardiness. I'm not seeing the argument as "querulous"; as you can see above, I substantially share their concerns in this case. For the discussion that led to the new start, see the AN/I archive; for my lifting the latest block (not ban), well, I had the blocking admin's permission and the article has since been semi-protected. For anything further, my talk page would be a better place although there may be a gap before I get back to you, I'm about to go offline for several hours. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This user has a record of harmful behaviour, of the sort that really burns out good editors, going back several years, and you've got a history, even if presumably well-intentioned, of playing wingman. I'm disappointed that I had to find out that he had a long-standing page under "Long term abuse" via email rather than having that rather important context raised here by either of the two editors who keep allowing it to continue. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss the issue, not me. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Massive overhaul
Hey all,

I'm about to begin a massive overhaul of this article. There's large amount of non-neutral and uncited material in this article and it needs to be rectified, since it concerns a Former Prime Minister of Australia, and is also a Biography article.

You can help; help me find references for the uncited material on this page, as well as fixing up the prose, removing non-neutral material, and expanding the article with neutral and referenced information where possible.

 Pursey  Talk 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Keating by nature was non-neutral. The only thing of substance to emerge from keating's mouth was his boyfriend's c*ck. His nickname was Mr 18%.220.240.255.189 (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Paul Keating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130813084513/http://www.themonthly.com.au/tm/node/1153 to http://www.themonthly.com.au/tm/node/1153

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed "Controversy over East Timor" section and content
Per revert edit summary, a) see Controversy sections b) was attempting integration of content but on doing found it included significant Suharto/East Timor content not directly involving Keating, made significant controversial allegations requiring solid peer-reviewed WP:REFs, but generally overall seemed against WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, WP:BLP and WP:NEUTRAL. A review of the revert link will show the content removed which violated the WP guidelines. In the end I failed to salvage any of it (kept the prior East Timor content of course, which to me does seem to be about right in terms of article WP:WEIGHT) but happy to discuss here if desired. Timeshift (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem, thank you Timeshift I'll rework that section on Keating and East Timor so that it respects more WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. Thanks for the adviceDeathlibrarian (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I still don't see how you could add more than the current existing East Timor content to this article without it becoming a clear WP:POVFORK with WP:WEIGHT issues. Instead of another add and revert, I would strongly encourage bringing your proposed additional East Timor content to this talk section first to see if there's any chance of it gaining WP:CONSENSUS traction. Until then, Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just reinserted that section on Mr Keating and East Timor. It's now been rewritten to observe WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, WP:BLP and WP:NEUTRAL - thanks Timeshift for highlighting that. Please do not remove until it has been discussed here, so as to avoid another add and revert. I've added in about 4 articles that offer the opposing viewpoints. IMHO a lot better to include this here, as opposed to it having it's own page in a larger article, or include with an article about Australia's role with East Timor generally. Please feel free to tidy up or to add more. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Reverted - massive issues, WP:WEIGHT for starters - what rises East Timor above any other Keating-era area of discussion that it should elevate above all others to get its own section, and have an additional 3 lengthy paragraphs - very WP:POVFORK. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I already said theres no WP:CONSENSUS for your disputed change to the status quo, and to take proposals to this talk page so it can be worked out without starting an edit war. Remember that the onus is on you to get consensus for your disputed change from status quo and that the status quo is what is kept until such time as a new consensus might be found. Edit: Re-add due to edit conflict and re-revert. DO NOT EDIT WAR. Your change from the status quo is disputed so you cannot re-add it, the onus is not on me, it is on you. You have been around for a decade, you should know which way WP:CONSENSUS works. Cease your edit warring NOW or your actions will be escalated to admins. I've been very tolerant until now but my patience is wearing extremely thin now. You are all kinds of wrong. Stop edit warring or get banned. Timeshift (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I would ask that you cease from threatening me in such a manner, this is really rude, I've tried to be polite here. You yourself indicated the section had NPOV issues. I've gone to a lot of trouble to fix those, and without discussion, you have removed the section. As you won't discuss it, I'll be raising this as a dispute with the admins. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And they'll tell you to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process rather than attempt to edit war contentious material in. As I noted on Timeshift's talk page, the material in question here is blatantly biased and supported by sub-standard sources, including old newspaper op-eds, including from people on the political fringe like John Pilger. That wouldn't be OK in any article, and especially not one on a living person (please see WP:BLP). Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * So Nick-D your saying you don't think Pilger's work is acceptable to be referenced in this section? I sort of wondered why he wasn't referenced. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to discuss the issues raised here about inserting the section. Nick-D has concerns about using John Pilger as a reference. I had considered him to be pretty respected, but may be I need to check? _ I seem to have recollection he has won awards for his documentaries? At the least, we can see if he is used a reference in Wikipedia in other sections? Also the issue of newspaper articles being used as references. I'm happy to look for Journal articles and book references (which I can do today). However, some of these comments were made in the media at the time, so may not be in other forms of media. Lastly, Timeshift has raised the issue of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. I think the article is a tad unbalanced without this included, as speaking for someone who lived through this era, it was an important aspect of Australian International politics, and associated with Keating through his ties to Suharto. IMHO he was differentiated from other prime ministers in that while the US pulled their support, Keating continued Australian military support. Anyways, would be good to discuss these issues, rather than more edit warring and reverting of the section. In the meantime, I will look into Pilger and look for some better references. Thanks guys, I think we can chat here and work to include this info [User:Deathlibrarian|Deathlibrarian]] (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As Nick-D said, he was carrying on policy from previous Prime Ministers, but there was definitely focus on him more so than other Australian Prime Ministers,  I think perhaps you could say because of Santa Cruz massacre happening, perhaps more focus on East Timor as people  became more aware of it in this era (with people like Noam Chomsky, Pilger and Jose Ramos Horta bringing it to light).  As mentioned before, the US pulled away from Timor, leaving Australia as a conspicuous supporter, and you even had overseas protests against Keating, for instance, when he went to Ireland. Keating also had a strong association (financial? I can't remember?) with Suharto, which some people (rightly or wrongly)  saw as an issue with Timor. You must remember, it was during this period that Jose Ramos Horta was very active against Keating,  eventually culminating in him getting a Nobel Peace Prize. Arguably, the eventual focus culminating in Timor being granted independance, not long after Keating. So what I'm saying here is, there are connections with the Timor issue  that Keating had, that other people like Fraser, Hawke and Whitlam didn't. Not all necessarily because of Keating, but the focus was there on him, at that time.... so relevant to his  article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's gone quiet here - just wondered if you guys could discuss the issues here, before I add a revised section, taking into account your suggestions. In particular was wondering about Pilger not being a proper source??? Just what the basis of that was? Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's gone quiet because we were away from our computers (or at least I was sleeping and then at work). Please don't edit war material in - gain consensus first. If you do otherwise you will be blocked. Op-eds are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, and especially not on living people, and there's no sensible reason to be using them for a subject like this given biographies, history books and various academic works can be consulted. A way forward here for you is to post on this talk page more neutrally-written and better sourced material for other editors to consider. Please remember that Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, with all material needing to be supported by suitable reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wasn't edit warring, I've been trying to have a discussion about the sources. I guess, so we can move forward, would be great if you can look at these references I would like to include, just in terms of reliable sources. No probs if you haven't been around, I know we are all volunteers here in Wikipedia land, and we have real lives to live too!. I have a couple more sources I want to put up here, would be good if you could let me know what you think. Got them at work, so will put them up tomorrow. cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's some interesting sources, would be great if I could get some feedback on these -

*Gusmao, Xanana “Xanana attacks Australia over East Timor” The Age (Melbourne, Australia). July 13, 1994, 3 *Pilger, John "Blood On The Hands of the Mates" New Statesman & Society. March 11, 1994, Vol. 7 Issue 293, p. 8. *Whitlam, Gough "Whitlam renews E Timor attack" The Australian (National, Australia). July 28, 1999, 005 *Sweetman, "Being Right Can Aslo be wrong" Sunday Mail 10 October 1999, p. 13. *GINO MANDARINO "Keating said nothing wrong on East Timor" Illawarra Mercury. 10 August 1999 p43 Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry references are a but jumbled there - I will reformat them, so easier to assess as per reliable sourcesDeathlibrarian (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You have been given feedback on them. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks Nick, are you referring to individual feedback on these references somewhere (in which case, I can't see it), or just a general comment that you are not going to support their inclusion? I know you don't support Pilger as an authority, but I would say his standing as a journalist, documentary maker and author, plus the fact he has been used elsewhere in Wikipedia, substantiates him as a reliable source as per WP:SOURCE and I am surprised he has been excluded from this article. I'd like to include him, if that is ok, because he has made some critical points on Keating which I think would balance the article a bit more (in my opinion, anyway). Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, you can make your content as perfect as you like, the bottom line is it's still nowhere near any resemblance of an appropriate addition - you still continue to ignore your violation of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and subsequent WP:POVFORK. There is no rationale you can provide which would come anywhere even close to justifying rising East Timor's significance/importance to above any and all other Keating-era material. You proposed to add an additional three lengthy paragraphs. We already have a Timor paragraph in his Prime Minister section and another mention in his Retirement section. The most you'll be able to get away with is a slight expansion of the Timor paragraph within the Prime Minister section... as to how you'll manage to cut down all your material to just a couple of extra sentences, well, i'm not sure your apparent obsession on Timor is capable of that, but please try, as that's the only way you'll be successful and gain WP:CONSENSUS. As it already stands, no paragraph in his Prime Minister section is wholly and solely dedicated to just one issue, except for Timor. It's a shorter paragraph which may be why it has been allowed for so long. But there won't be any WP:CONTROVERSY sections, let alone any new section. Everything that happened during Keating's PMship is under the Prime Minister heading. I'm not sure why you're acting so arrogantly that you think a) Timor deserves its own section but nothing else does, which very very falsely would indicate to readers it was by far the undisputed largest issue of his PMship, b) you think any issue deserves more than a part-paragraph, or paragraph at most, and c) why at no point in any discussion have you addressed any of this? Unlike Nick-D, I hadn't replied further to you because I was extremely annoyed that like Keating's tenure, you decided to cherry-pick what you did and did not address in my concerns initially given. It's quite clear to me that you've read it, and it's quite clear that you don't want to address it, but to connect the two, the reason why you won't address it, is beyond me. Instead, all you wanted to do was edit war and ignore how WP:CONSENSUS works for not re-adding disputed new material until there is agreement to and ignore the direction to take your drafts here to the talk page instead of illegally edit warring to re-add your contested new material. The only conclusion I can come to is you know i'm right and have nothing of substance to respond with, so you're attempting to subvert in order to get your own way. You've been on wikipedia for 10 years, you bloody well aught to know better. Why I gave you the benefit of the doubt yet again by giving you a further response, when i'm sure you know the issue, i'll probably never figure out. I'm so over this already. Timeshift (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Timeshift - *for the second time*, I would ask you to desist with the personal attacks (while I have been polite to you), and stick to the discussion at hand. I was discussing some sources with Nick-D, - I've basically come here to insert some material into this article and improve it, if it's seen as acceptable, so be it. If it's not, then that's ok. You making constant personal attacks on me is making it quite difficult to do this. Please observe WP:PERSONAL and WP:AGF. As for WP:UNDUE WEIGHT - IMHO there are issues that need to be inserted in this article that are currently missing, either in the current East timor para, or in it's own section. Until these things are addressed, the article could be construed as having a pro Keating viewpoint - please see WP:NPOV. I would argue the issue should have it's own section because of (1) it's importance and (2) the article is written in a chronological fashion, and Keating's issues with Timor covered multiple periods (into his retirement). So I would see it as better that the issue is deal with in it's own section, but mainly concerned that the major issues here are included in the article, somewhere. There are currently a number of issues not covered in the article that IMHO should be mentioned, while all of these may not be included, I am concerned that none of them are mentioned. (1) Keating's defence of Suharto, over human rights (2) the Keating government stepped up defence ties with the junta, filling the gap left by the decision of US Congress to limit military relations with Indonesia following the Dili massacre.(3) The signing of the Timor gap treaty, and ignorance of East Timor sovereignity, and general acceleration of links to Indonesia (4) Keatings organisation of the 1995 Australia-Indonesia Security Agreement (5)Ali Alatas received the award of the Order of Australia(5) Keating's alleged financial dealings with Indonesia. (6) Keatings defence of the Santa Cruz Massacre. (7) Criticism of Keating putting financial considerations with Indonesia over human rights. Also, it appears, John Pilger's (who has been critical of Keating) references have been disallowed from this article for some reason. Considering his standing as a journalist, author and documentary maker, I can see no reason why his references wouldn't be allowed in this article? I'm happy to provide counter arguments for these, in defence of Keating, to establish a WP:NPOV. This is of course in line with Wikipedia policy, and important for the reader. Also, why do you keep quoting WP:POVFORK? - it only refers to forking of a point of view *into another article*, doesn't it? (forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's how I have always interpreted it) CheersDeathlibrarian (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing from this pointless discussion as you are dismissing my concerns, and for as long as you fail to gain a WP:CONSENSUS which looks extremely likely, the article stays with the status quo, which i'm very happy with. Good luck and good day :) Timeshift (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I haven't dismissed your concerns, I am here to discuss them. I have just raised extra points which I think could be included to improve the article... which you have promptly ignored and won't discuss. In any case, thanks for your contribution Timeshift, I'm sure we'll take what you've said here, into consideration in future discussion of inclusion of these extra points, it is decided to do so or not under WP:CONSENSUS Cheers. Good luck and good day to you as well.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, once again, I would like to include some extra points about these issues in this article. As said, I think it better to achieve WP:NPOV that they should be looked at and considered at least, and the John Pilger issue. Would be good to get some feedback on these, or otherwise, if anyone has any issues with these issues being included in the article, let me know. (1) Keating's defence of Suharto, over human rights (2) the Keating government stepped up defence ties with the junta, filling the gap left by the decision of US Congress to limit military relations with Indonesia following the Dili massacre.(3) The signing of the Timor gap treaty, and ignorance of East Timor sovereignity, and general acceleration of links to Indonesia (4) Keatings organisation of the 1995 Australia-Indonesia Security Agreement (5)Ali Alatas received the award of the Order of Australia(5) Keating's alleged financial dealings with Indonesia. (6) Keatings defence of the Santa Cruz Massacre. (7) Criticism of Keating putting financial considerations with Indonesia over human rights. Also, it appears, John Pilger's (who has been critical of Keating) references have been disallowed from this article for some reason. Considering his standing as a journalist, author and documentary maker, I can see no reason why his references wouldn't be allowed in this article? Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As noted above, please post some neutral and well-sourced text here for other editors to consider. Talking about such changes in the abstract when you have made specific edits along exactly the lines you propose which haven't attracted support from other editors is not at all helpful, and comes across as disingenuous (or in Wikipedia-talk, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks Nick-D I was putting these concepts here for people to consider within the context of the article generally, to get some feedback on the issues, and to show people that I feel not all issues have been covered here. Next step was to locate adequate actual good references for them, for people to consider. So no, I wasn't being disengenous. In any case, I can certainly get some good references for these (except for Ali Alitas being awarded the OA as being important, I would probably consider a minority view (though others editors may not?) and excluded under WP:UNDUE.Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Questionable new article - Australian Involvement in the East Timor Invasion
Deathlibrarian has created article Australian Involvement in the East Timor Invasion as a fork from Indonesian invasion of East Timor... is this a workable compromise or is the article subject area ripe for WP:AfD? I'm not sure there's precedent for it... none of the other countries involved have an article. The only other article starting with "Australian involvement in" is a Australian involvement in the Vietnam War redirect to the Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War article - chalk and cheese comparisons. Can others find anything to justify not sending the article to WP:AfD? Timeshift (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This appears to be, in part, a WP:POVFORK to recycle the Keating material rejected here (which is clearly bad faith editing). It's a notable topic, but the article seems to have been written with an axe to grind - as is indicated by its heavy reliance on commentary-type articles and books rather than more neutral sources. WP:TNT seems suitable. Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The user does seem hell-bent on giving this issue a hell of a lot more weight than it deserves in comparison to other Keating-era issues, one way or the other. They seem to fail to grasp the concept their intentions are drawing zero support, and that it still comes across as quite a transparent attempt to push their own apparent-close-to-the-heart agenda, which may be clouding their judgement. What really irks me is that they've been on here for over 10 years. No editor with such a long tenure has ever made such a concerted attempt to do what this user is trying to do. None of it adds up and it concerns me that they seem to be taking the attitude that nothing will stop them and they will get their way, one way or another, regardless of what the rest of us are repeatedly trying to tell them. It does make me wonder exactly what extremes it may end up taking for this user to reach the inevitable conclusion they will have to eventually concede to. Considering everything so far, I fear it may get far uglier first. Timeshift (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's room for a very good article on Australian involvement in the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor (there's easily a featured article's worth of sources on that one), but that's not the right title, and with this dude's obsession with Keating, he's probably not the one to write it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Guys, on the one hand, there were issues raised here in the talk page that there was no space on this article for any more detail on Keating and East Timor. So rather than cause WP:WEIGHT issues here, in my opinion, it made more sense for this info to go in an article that specifically deals with Australia's involvement, rather than have a bloated East Timor section here. So I did that. Now people are complaining about it. Pretty much, it seems I am damned if I do, and damned if I don't.Timeshift If you think there is no place for an article *Australian involvement in the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor* on Wikiipedia, and want to put it forward for WP:AfD please go ahead, I'm happy to contribute to the discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC). Similarly, if you think the page is biased or written in a WP:NPOVplease feel free to contribute references to make it more neutral. Nick-D I completely agree, there are *a lot* of newspaper articles references in there. I have just added some journal articles and better sources. In response to criticism here, I have also added some articles that support Keating, including an article by Whitlam. In any case, I have spent a lot of time on the Keating part of the article(and frankly, I'm a bit over it), I'm currently researching the other eras, and the protest movements.Timeshift I *would* ask you (once again) to discontinue the personal attacks, and may be stick to the issues at hand....but I think there is little point.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, thanks to all for the feedback on the article, I have submitted it for WP:GAN to get a proper assessment, and will continue to work on it in the meantime. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion: Articles for deletion/Australian Involvement in the East Timor Invasion Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to stop negative gearing triggered recession
After Paul Keating's statement in 1986 that he was "going to stop rich businessmen negative gearing their rental properties, a delegation of charities led by Brian Murnane of St Vincent de Paul Society visited Canberra to in form him that he had triggered a rental shortage. Landlords were selling their rental properties because they could not claim expenses. As a result Keating withdrew his tax changes.

It was too late. The rental shortage became a housing boom because formoer renters had no option but to buy homes because rental properties were no longer available.

Home-sellers made significant windfall profits and spent the money on imports. Home-buyer received mortgage money sourced from oerseas.

Australia's balance of trade became increasingly unfavourable. Paul Keating, who stated that he had the Treasury in his pocket, had the Treasury release an 18 month 17% Treasury note for those with $100,000 to invest. Home-sellers chose the lucrative Treasurty Note rather than invest in banks that gave far lower returns.

Eventually the banks raised their interest rates to compete with the Treasury's offer, and conversely charged up to 25% interest for loans.

Thousands of firms and individuals were bankrupted.

The scapegoats Bond and Skase et al were vilified and blamed for the recession triggered by Keating.

The lesson is that no government should attempt to abolish negative gearing until they have tens of thousands of homes available for the renters who would again be disposessed and for those who will not be able to afford homes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.97.158 (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Unlicensed Paul Keating image - user won't stop reverting - help!
Per my usertalk discussion, the user is repeatedly reverting to an invalid license image - - for over a dozen Paul Keating articles. If absolutely nothing else, won't even follow WP:BRD - status quo during dispute until consensus. Someone please step in, my attempts to educate have gone unheeded. Raised at [WP:AUP]. Timeshift (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Keating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829103719/http://www.webcity.com.au/keating/ to http://www.webcity.com.au/keating/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Divorced or not?
We say he and Annita separated in 1998 and "formally divorced" in 2008. But here, Troy Bramston, who wrote a 2016 biography of Keating, says "they remain separated". He was commenting on David Day's Paul Keating: The Biography (2015), and describes the divorce claim as "an unfortunate error".

So, where did we get our 2008 date from? It does not contain an in-line citation. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)